A California man has successfully sued Tinder, claiming the dating app discriminates against users over the age of 30 by charging them more to use the premium service Tinder Plus.
Tinder Plus allows users to have Unlimited Likes, Rewind to fix that accidental swipe, five Super Likes per day and one Boost a month to be one of the top profiles in their area for 30 minutes. The passport feature also gives users the chance to talk to singles anywhere in the world.
Allan Candelore, 33, submitted his lawsuit in Los Angeles in May 2015 when he was 31.
He complained that the app charges over 30s $19.99 (£14.40) every month for Tinder Plus, whereas under 30s pay $9.99 (£7.20) for the same features. Candelore added that the pricing difference violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a 1959 California law that “secures equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments,” according to the court.
His lawsuit claimed that Tinder violated the Unfair Competition Law which the court stated “prohibits, and provides civil remedies for, ‘unfair competition’, which includes ‘any unlawful, unfair of fraudulent business act or practice.’”
Tinder defended its decision on setting the price difference for Tinder Plus based on their market research, which found that “customers age 30 and younger have less capacity to pay for premium services.” They added, their younger users “need a lower price to pull the trigger.”
Candelore is an advocate for men’s rights and has previously sued women’s groups for prohibiting him from entering events.
Judge Brian Currey, writing for California’s 2nd District Court Appeal, stated that Tinder “employs an arbitrary, class-based, generalisation about older users’ income as a basis for charging them more than younger users.”
The appellate court mainly agreed with Candelore, the judge wrote: “No matter what Tinder’s market research may have shown about the younger users’ relative income and willingness to pay for the service, as a group, as compared to the older cohort, some individuals will not fit the mould. Some users are ‘budget constrained’ and less willing to pay than some in the younger group.”